ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #6

[IHAVENOCLUE]

This has been brought up many times before. The campground is very rustic. There are no fees, no registration logs, no ranger station or campground hosts. It is just a pit toilet and 5 primitive designated campsites in the middle of nowhere. The campsites each contain a fire ring and a picnic table. Here is the Forest Service link about the campground: http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/scnf/recarea?recid=76098

thank you for this website and information...

Please lead me to where it says there are no log-ins, etc...

I guess I am asking because I would imagine that there would be some kind of record of the activity in that campground to warrant a pit-toilet...though rustic, pit-toilets do take man power and supplies to maintain... Therefore $$$...

additionally... IIRC... Somewhere it was described as a lo-activity campground...

How would it be classified as such if there was no log keeping?

who would know if tons or no people camped there?

I am not directing this question at you...

these are questions I have swimming in my head...

I guess I would like the LE to announce that there indeed was NO log of the campgrounds...

Or that the logs had been checked...

All... JMO...

 

[jmcgladr]

thank you for this website and information...

Please lead me to where it says there are no log-ins, etc...

I guess I am asking because I would imagine that there would be some kind of record of the activity in that campground to warrant a pit-toilet...though rustic, pit-toilets do take man power and supplies to maintain... Therefore $$$...

additionally... IIRC... Somewhere it was described as a lo-activity campground...

How would it be classified as such if there was no log keeping?

who would know if tons or no people camped there?

I am not directing this question at you...

these are questions I have swimming in my head...

I guess I would like the LE to announce that there indeed was NO log of the campgrounds...

Or that the logs had been checked...

All... JMO...

In the link provided, it stated there were no reservations and no fees, so why would there be a log? I have camped in primitive sites in the NW before, and I can assure you there is no log and no need to "check in" anywhere - nor are there people to do an in-person "check in." The cost of maintaining these sites comes out of tax dollars, state or federal depending on the designation. There would not be heavy use of these campsites given their remote location, lack of facilities and the fact that they are not well-publicized.

 

[ILOKAL]

This has been brought up many times before. The campground is very rustic. There are no fees, no registration logs, no ranger station or campground hosts. It is just a pit toilet and 5 primitive designated campsites in the middle of nowhere. The campsites each contain a fire ring and a picnic table. Here is the Forest Service link about the campground: http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/scnf/recarea?recid=76098

When I went to the online site yesterday, it said the lower (primitive) campground had two sites, each with picnic table and fire ring, and a vault toilet. I thought the family camped at one of these two sites which are down below the main campground. I had previously seen the information for the five sites you mention but couldn't find it this time when I looked. From the photos we've seen of their campsite, it sure looks like there were no other campers in the area. Do we know for sure which primitive area they were at?

 

[ClaireNC]

When I went to the online site yesterday, it said the lower (primitive) campground had two sites, each with picnic table and fire ring, and a vault toilet. I thought the family camped at one of these two sites which are down below the main campground. I had previously seen the information for the five sites you mention but couldn't find it this time when I looked. From the photos we've seen of their campsite, it sure looks like there were no other campers in the area. Do we know for sure which primitive area they were at?

There are 5 campsites total - 2 lower and 3 upper, which are about 1/2 mile up from the lower campsites. There is one pit toilet for the whole campground not one for each campsite. They were at one of the two lower campsites. All five of the campsites are primitive. This picture shows where I believe their campsite is, highlighted in red. In this image there is a truck and camper parked at that site. The blue lines show roughly where the creek runs.

I've posted this before:

 

[ILOKAL]

There are 5 campsites total two lower and 3 upper, which is about 1/2 mile up past the reservoir from the lower campground. There is one pit toilet for the whole campground not one for each campsite. They were at one of the two lower campsites. This picture shows where I believe their campsite is highlighted in red. In this image there is a truck and camper parked at that site. The blue lines show roughly where the creek runs.

I've posted this before:
View attachment 79578

Thanks Claire. So that's where the five sites come from! I thought they camped at the lower campground with only one other site. I don't think that other site was occupied or do we know otherwise? Many have said they believe someone would have seen/heard something. I don't understand, given the remoteness and distance between sites, why they believe that.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Keep in mind, law enforcement would've completely shut everybody out during their search efforts. Only "qualified and trained" personnel would have been allowed in (and people spreading ashes). Unfortunately, those people always seem to come up empty during their searches.

It's the morning jogger, the old man out walking his dog, the hunter trying to break in a coon hound, or the driver that pulls over to pee, that appear to be the "most qualified and trained" to find dead bodies lying out in plain sight. Unfortunately, none of those people are allowed on site while LE is on the scene of their exhaustive searches.

Sure, get a 100 people together and send them out in every direction from the campsite. Don't worry about trampling evidence or who is going to walk in what grid, just get out there and walk around. Climb up on top of things, climb down under things, look inside of every crack big enough for a chihuahua to get into.

They'll probably have him located before dusk on the first day out.

After the public goes out and finds the poor little guy, it will be entertaining to watch the authorities stammer and sputter and get frustrated when the reporters ask them why they missed him during the searches. It happens a lot, and they never really offer up a good explanation as to why or how.

Probably the same reason you spend your morning looking everywhere for your keys only to find them sitting right out on the dining room table where you dropped them the night before.

 

[ILOKAL]

Does anyone know what Unit that campground is in? Also, does anyone know where Units #21 and #21A are in relation to the campsite?

 

[ClaireNC]

People who have never been wilderness camping in that part of the country don't realize the remoteness. It is nothing at all like pulling into a campground in a more developed area. From everything I have read it sounds like they were the only people at the campground the day DeOrr went missing. Even the Forest Service page says it has "light" usage.

In the wilderness people do camp in areas that are not designated for camping. Just pitch a tent wherever you land at the end of the day. The Forest Service has set up some primitive sites which basically just means a fire pit and picnic table. Many sites don't even have the table. This helps eliminate some of the destruction of nature resources if people were all just camping wherever they wanted to. There also might be fire restrictions in the back country, whereas, sites like this you are allowed to build a fire.

 

[ClaireNC]

Does anyone know what Unit that campground is in? Also, does anyone know where Units #21 and #21A are in relation to the campsite?

What do you mean by units? It's coordinates are: Latitude : 44.57685716 Longitude : -113.4700399

 

[SweetT]

In the link provided, it stated there were no reservations and no fees, so why would there be a log? I have camped in primitive sites in the NW before, and I can assure you there is no log and no need to "check in" anywhere - nor are there people to do an in-person "check in." The cost of maintaining these sites comes out of tax dollars, state or federal depending on the designation. There would not be heavy use of these campsites given their remote location, lack of facilities and the fact that they are not well-publicized.

In my experience here in Montana even in the primitive sites that are no fees or reservations there is always a time limit and I have nearly always seen a place where you can leave your information as in who you are, what day you arrived etc and even usually a drop box of some sort. I always assumed the rangers in the area checked about the 14 day limits etc or else you would have more or less squatters in the best camp sites for God knows how long and this is totally discouraged. So I would think there has to be some type of way to some how track this in Idaho also.

 

[ILOKAL]

What do you mean by units? It's coordinates are: Latitude : 44.57685716 Longitude : -113.4700399

The Salmon-Challis Forest has designated units for hunting. Various outfitters are authorized to conduct their hunts in certain units.

 

[ClaireNC]

The Salmon-Challis Forest has designated units for hunting. Various outfitters are authorized to conduct their hunts in certain units.

<modsnip> But here is the answer to your question. It is in unit 29.

 

[white rabbit]

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/huntplanner/unit.aspx?ID=38

Outfitters & Guides

No hunting outfitters are available in Unit 29.

No pack trip outfitters are available in Unit 29.

 

[ClaireNC]

thank you for this website and information...

Please lead me to where it says there are no log-ins, etc...

I guess I am asking because I would imagine that there would be some kind of record of the activity in that campground to warrant a pit-toilet...though rustic, pit-toilets do take man power and supplies to maintain... Therefore $$$...

additionally... IIRC... Somewhere it was described as a lo-activity campground...

How would it be classified as such if there was no log keeping?

who would know if tons or no people camped there?

I am not directing this question at you...

these are questions I have swimming in my head...

I guess I would like the LE to announce that there indeed was NO log of the campgrounds...

Or that the logs had been checked...

All... JMO...

As somebody else mentioned, there might be a box that people are supposed to sign into. In my experience camping in the area, even if they do have a box, there is often nothing in the box to write on or a pencil to use. There is an online registration service for camping in the National Forest, however the Timber Creek/Stone Reservoir campsite is not listed on that service. They do list the other Timber Creek campsite which is closer to MacKay and has 12 sites and there is a fee. http://www.recreation.gov/unifSearchResults.do

As for "how do they know it has light usage?" I assume a ranger drives through there occasionally to check it out.

Of course, there has been no LE confirmation if there are logs and if they were checked. I'm just talking from personal experience.

 

[dtsnyder]

I just returned from camping for a week in the Salmon - Challis National Forest. The only places they have logs are the fee sites (and even then many people don't sign-in/pay). We were in one of those fee sites with light use and the forest ranger was there 1 time (in a week!) To replace toilet paper in the pit toilet. Even most fee sites aren't staffed by a camp host.

We saw the primitive sites within the forest and there are no logs. The forest service drives by occasionally to check for Tp. All of the primitive sites, and a lot of the fee sites are pack - in, pack - out (garbage etc).

One poster correctly said that the reason they provide toilets, tables etc in free areas is to reduce destruction of natural forest in a higher use area.

Yes the campsite that deorr was in was considered light use. But the use is determined by overall use (during week and weekend). So many sites are classified as light, but get heavier use on the weekend.

It is very likely deorr ' s family was totally alone in the campsite. There are so many places to camp that a group would just move on to the next one if someone was there. Most of us want privacy when we camp.

 

[BeeFriendly]

See my post above about the light blue vehicle.

As far as it wizzing by, I have not heard that. I think it was hypothetical.??



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Sorry, apparently the word 'wizzing by' was used by someone else posting a theory.

 

[Jules71]

Missing.... for four weeks today. Sad. No answers.

Where is this precious little boy? &#128148;

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[SweetT]

thank you for this website and information...

Please lead me to where it says there are no log-ins, etc...

I guess I am asking because I would imagine that there would be some kind of record of the activity in that campground to warrant a pit-toilet...though rustic, pit-toilets do take man power and supplies to maintain... Therefore $$$...

additionally... IIRC... Somewhere it was described as a lo-activity campground...

How would it be classified as such if there was no log keeping?

who would know if tons or no people camped there?

I am not directing this question at you...

these are questions I have swimming in my head...

I guess I would like the LE to announce that there indeed was NO log of the campgrounds...

Or that the logs had been checked...

All... JMO...

I think one can call the forest ranger for this camping area and find this out.

 

[CanSleuth]

I'm curious if there has ever been any explanation from the family why they chose that location for camping? I'm not trying to imply anything negative, just wondering why they would drive 120 miles to such a rustic and remote campsite? Perhaps I'm posh, but my family and I prefer state parks where we can enjoy washrooms, a playground, and Junior Ranger programs. The remote campsite seems like an odd choice to me to bring a 2 year old and an elderly man (who may be somewhat physically and or mentally limited). I could understand if it were just a couple of young men on a hunting trip, but a family? Were they just stopped there overnight as they were travelling elsewhere? Did they plan to hunt in the area? Do they have ties to the area?

This has been brought up many times before. The campground is very rustic. There are no fees, no registration logs, no ranger station or campground hosts. It is just a pit toilet and 5 primitive designated campsites in the middle of nowhere. The campsites each contain a fire ring and a picnic table. Here is the Forest Service link about the campground: http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/scnf/recarea?recid=76098

 

[allmybecsloveme]

Two questions:

How big is the creek next to the campsite? If it is a bigger creek with fast flow, they need to be checking it all the way to wherever it flows into. If it is a very slow running creek, very small etc I'd still check it a bit more, but it would be easier to rule out after a while.

The reason I ask is that we had a creek next to my childhood home that was literally a foot wide and a few inches deep most of the time. Yet a few miles downstream it was as wide as some rivers are.

Question two, were these oversized cowboy boots he was wearing just a few sizes too large? Or were they bigger cowboy boots - a child size instead of toddler or even adult sized? Anyone know? If they were adult sized I would imagine it would have fallen off in a wild animal attack which would mean it should be found eventually. Who knows.